|
On February 08 2016 04:33 BronzeKnee wrote:
I think Blizzard doesn't want to do that because they are pushing their Disruptor. But Disruptors are such a binary unit, either you get the big hit or you don't. And because of that, there has to be a way to avoid their damage, and therefore the top players are quite good at avoiding damage, and you need consistent damage dealers that do damage overtime instead of burst. That is why Marines are so strong, they are consistent damage dealers.
It is the same with Abduct, it is a binary ability, either it pulls the opposing unit or it is killed or feedbacked/emped. If it was too easy to kill or feedback/emp, then it would be worthless and then not used. So it is strong and therefore counters the Colossus too hard in my opinion.
The game is better without binary game design.
Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2-base SCV pull vs Protoss is binary. Archon Toilet is binary. Viper vs Raven mech is binary. Adepts vs Marines is binary. Marines vs Banes is not binary. WMs vs Ling/Bane is not binary. And Disruptors are the least binary thing in the known universe.
Sure, it's POSSIBLE to get a 15-supply Disruptor hit that completely changes the course of the game, or a 0-supply hit that also completely changes the course of the game, but so what? A flock of Mutalisks could kill 20 workers, or they could kill 0 workers, depending on how much attention both players are paying. Does that mean Mutalisks are badly designed now?
Protoss needs 1) a weaker Adept, 2) a slightly weaker Disruptor, 3) a considerably more accessible Disruptor, and 4) a weaker Psionic Storm. Instead of prolonging the phase of the game where Protoss can roll Bio armies by A+moving, get to the next phase - the TvP version of bio vs Ling/Bling - ASAP.
|
On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote:
Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2-base SCV pull vs Protoss is binary. Archon Toilet is binary. Viper vs Raven mech is binary. Adepts vs Marines is binary. Marines vs Banes is not binary. WMs vs Ling/Bane is not binary. And Disruptors are the least binary thing in the known universe.
But they really aren't.
They have a 21 second cooldown and do sufficient damage to 1-shot nearly everything.
- if you hit something, it dies
- if you don't, that disruptor is useless for a very long time
^^ that's very binary. Your own suggestion for improvement acknowledges this implicitly:
On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote:
2) a slightly weaker Disruptor, 3) a considerably more accessible Disruptor
You want:
- if it hits something, that something takes quite a bit of damage, but survives
- one can field sufficient disruptors that one being useless for a bit of time isn't a big deal
... but what you want isn't what exists today.
The current Disruptor is very binary. If it was made much cheaper, faster to produce, and lower damage ... then, sure, it'd be a better-designed unit -- but it isn't any of those things.
|
On February 09 2016 10:21 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote:
Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2-base SCV pull vs Protoss is binary. Archon Toilet is binary. Viper vs Raven mech is binary. Adepts vs Marines is binary. Marines vs Banes is not binary. WMs vs Ling/Bane is not binary. And Disruptors are the least binary thing in the known universe. But they really aren't. They have a 21 second cooldown and do sufficient damage to 1-shot nearly everything. - if you hit something, it dies - if you don't, that disruptor is useless for a very long time ^^ that's very binary.
Great, you killed one Marine 100% dead with the Disruptor's 1000 damage bomb. Feel like that Disruptor shot was worth it? No? How about you killed two Marines? Worth it yet?
How about you killed five Marines? Seven? Ten? Where do you draw the line between a very bad Disruptor shot, just a bad one, an OK one, a pretty good one, and a great one? Does it depend on the context of the size and make-up of your opponent's army?
The fact that these questions can be asked automatically means that the Disruptor does not have a binary outcome on a battlefield. Binary means something exists in two states. A typical lategame TvP will have numerous Disruptors, each of them launching numerous balls, each ball capable of hitting anywhere between 0 and 10 units. While it is possible that a single great hit will snowball into a victory, that is in no way different from a great Baneling flank snowballing into a victory, or a great Siege up doing the same. In practice, the effectiveness of each Disruptor is directly influenced by the Protoss and his opponent, and can vary widely. Get a bad hit? Don't worry, the game isn't over yet, you'll get another chance to try in 30 seconds.
NOTHING whatsoever about this behavior is binary.
Your own suggestion for improvement acknowledges this implicitly: Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote:
2) a slightly weaker Disruptor, 3) a considerably more accessible Disruptor You want: - if it hits something, that something takes quite a bit of damage, but survives - one can field sufficient disruptors that one being useless for a bit of time isn't a big deal ... but what you want isn't what exists today. The current Disruptor is very binary. If it was made much cheaper, faster to produce, and lower damage ... then, sure, it'd be a better-designed unit -- but it isn't any of those things.
My suggestions have nothing to do with Disruptors being binary or not, and everything to do with the fact that I want PvT to revolve around Disruptors a lot more than it currently does - not just in the lategame of some games, but in every single TvP that gets to 2+ bases. Disruptors should be the way to deal with bio, the way Banes are the way to deal with Bio in TvZ. Storm should be an inferior, but versatile alternative. Why? Because it's a fuckton easier to Psi Storm well in SC2 than it is to Nova well. And Colo shouldn't be an alternative at all, just scrap the concept and rebuild that unit from scratch to deal with Lurkers and Ultralisks, or something.
|
On February 09 2016 10:57 pure.Wasted wrote:
The fact that these questions can be asked automatically means that the Disruptor does not have a binary outcome on a battlefield. Binary means something exists in two states. A typical lategame TvP will have numerous Disruptors, each of them launching numerous balls, each ball capable of hitting anywhere between 0 and 10 units. While it is possible that a single great hit will snowball into a victory, that is in no way different from a great Baneling flank snowballing into a victory, or a great Siege up doing the same. In practice, the effectiveness of each Disruptor is directly influenced by the Protoss and his opponent, and can vary widely. Get a bad hit? Don't worry, the game isn't over yet, you'll get another chance to try in 30 seconds.
NOTHING whatsoever about this behavior is binary.
I just told you exactly what was binary. The number of units killed isn't (in the strictest sense). The "everything it hits dies" or "it's got a very long cooldown to wait-out before being useful" is very binary.
You can't focus on exactly one aspect and claim that is all that defines the unit. Disruptors are very binary in the sense I mentioned ... which, incidentally, is the only sense that the Protoss player has much control over: when to use the ability. The number of units hit / not hit is largely up to the micro of the opponent.
Novas, ultimately, aren't about killing things -- they're about shooing the opponent away from your army (given that you've sufficient novas). In this way, they're a whole lot more like swarm hosts (delaying the game) than they are like banelings (even if the "boom" aspect is obviously correlated to banelings and widow mines).
On February 09 2016 10:57 pure.Wasted wrote:
My suggestions have nothing to do with Disruptors being binary or not, and everything to do with the fact that I want PvT to revolve around Disruptors a lot more than it currently does - not just in the lategame of some games, but in every single TvP that gets to 2+ bases. Disruptors should be the way to deal with bio, the way Banes are the way to deal with Bio in TvZ. Storm should be an inferior, but versatile alternative. Why? Because it's a fuckton easier to Psi Storm well in SC2 than it is to Nova well. And Colo shouldn't be an alternative at all, just scrap the concept and rebuild that unit from scratch to deal with Lurkers and Ultralisks, or something.
But not the Disruptor of today, because you see problems with it. Those problems are rooted in the binary aspect I've mentioned above. Those are exactly the problems you want to see changed (whether you acknowledge them as being binary or not).
The problems with the unit's design are obvious:
- it does too much damage
- it has too long a cool-down / too few available at once
I'd add a third (which you'll probably disagree with given the above):
- too dependent upon opponent's micro to do damage
|
I suggest you use the term "high variance" instead of "binary", as you boys seem to be fighting about what it actually means. Hopefully everyone can agree that the disruptor has a high variance in terms of damage output, which I think is the actual issue some of you have with it, not being binary.
Probability distributions of damage output to illustrate. 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kZSXGdC.jpg)
|
Not Cascade, you are just being lazy and not reading the words. The other posters all understand what binary means. But if there is an argument, one is arguing binary in terms of damage, and the other is arguing binary in terms of player interaction. So yeah, nice graph, shame it is pointless.
|
On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
|
Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I guess he means that there is a lot of variance in the rate of succes of the unit. But I believe that is a good thing as it means micro matters more.
|
On February 09 2016 20:47 Daimai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR) To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
PvZ in code A: 19-21
So much anti-protoss bias.
|
On February 09 2016 22:12 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 20:47 Daimai wrote:On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR) To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something. PvZ in code A: 19-21 So much anti-protoss bias.
19-21 doesnt tell you much though. Consistent with both 50% (p=0.43) and 43% (p=34%). Just not enough games to see even a 43% imbalance.
|
On February 09 2016 22:56 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 22:12 Laurens wrote:On February 09 2016 20:47 Daimai wrote:On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR) To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something. PvZ in code A: 19-21 So much anti-protoss bias. 19-21 doesnt tell you much though. Consistent with both 50% (p=0.43) and 43% (p=34%). Just not enough games to see even a 43% imbalance.
Neither does data from November...
My point was that David Kim is not mentioning PvZ in any community feedback posts because PvZ seems to be doing just fine at the top level.
TvP on the other hand... When only 1 Terran makes the DH RO16 and one week later a Korean Protoss pro goes on camera to thank David Kim and ask for nerfs, there is ample reason to mention it and act.
Nothing to do with bias.
|
On February 09 2016 23:04 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 22:56 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2016 22:12 Laurens wrote:On February 09 2016 20:47 Daimai wrote:On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR) To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something. PvZ in code A: 19-21 So much anti-protoss bias. 19-21 doesnt tell you much though. Consistent with both 50% (p=0.43) and 43% (p=34%). Just not enough games to see even a 43% imbalance. Neither does data from November... My point was that David Kim is not mentioning PvZ in any community feedback posts because PvZ seems to be doing just fine at the top level. TvP on the other hand... When only 1 Terran makes the DH RO16 and one week later a Korean Protoss pro goes on camera to thank David Kim and ask for nerfs, there is ample reason to mention it and act. Nothing to do with bias.
So 4000 korean pro games showing that Z has a 57% winrate in ZvP is "doing just fine"?
While 4000 games showing a 50% winrate in TvP is "ample reason to act", because of a certain round in a certain tournament you picked? What about all the other tournaments? how many terrans in the ro16 there? How about round of 32? Round of 8? How come those numbers didn't make it into your post? Because they didn't confirm what you want to be true. That is called "cherry picking", and yes, is a clear sign of bias.
And yes, each month is significantly different from 50% by itself (~1000 games in each month), but together it's even stronger.
Not sure if you are trolling or being sarcastic actually... If so, well done I guess. 
I mean, I should say that a 50% winrate in aligulac doesn't necessarily mean that the matchup is fine. There may be imblances at the very highest level where we dont have power to spot it, and there may be other properties of the game that are not wanted but that doesn't affect the winrate. There is no sign of TvP imbalance in the data. What we can say, is that IF there is a significant imbalance in winrates in TvP, it can only be at the VERY top level, like code A and above, no longer visible code B, or we would have seen it in this analysis.
|
4000 korean pro games
lol.
While 4000 games showing a 50% winrate in TvP is "ample reason to act"
This is not what I said.
What about all the other tournaments?
DH and Code A are the only relevant tournaments so far.
I mean, I should say that a 50% winrate in aligulac doesn't necessarily mean that the matchup is fine.
May as well delete your OP then, since it's entirely based on aligulac winrates.
Any balance discussion that involves Aligulac stats should be insta-deleted. Not relevant at all.
|
On February 09 2016 22:12 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 20:47 Daimai wrote:On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR) To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something. PvZ in code A: 19-21 So much anti-protoss bias.
Here stats from GSL season 1 2016
PvT 102–92 (52.58%)
PvZ 94–131 (41.78%)
TvZ 79–88 (47.31%)
SSL:
PvT 35–26 (57.38%)
PvZ 28–30 (48.28%)
TvZ 20–33 (37.74%)
|
I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
|
On February 10 2016 06:23 Daimai wrote:
I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
To be honest, so far they've treated protoss the way it should be treated. We need ample evidence before we patch something, we need as few changes as possible to accomodate professionals. If there's a possibility that a new meta changes the game, we should account for that. Now I'd say we're pretty close to having enough data to state a problem exists, and we should probably consider a change soon, unless the data changes dramatically.
All of that is fair. It's the instant pass that terran got that was problematic, not the opposite.
|
On February 10 2016 06:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 06:23 Daimai wrote:
I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous. To be honest, so far they've treated protoss the way it should be treated. We need ample evidence before we patch something, we need as few changes as possible to accomodate professionals. If there's a possibility that a new meta changes the game, we should account for that. Now I'd say we're pretty close to having enough data to state a problem exists, and we should probably consider a change soon, unless the data changes dramatically. All of that is fair. It's the instant pass that terran got that was problematic, not the opposite.
I would suggest looking at P vs Z win rates in HotS via time in game. P vs Z has always been around 40% -- unless you all-in'd. What has changed? All-ins aren't as easy to pull off, thus the ugly reality of P vs Z is showing through. Anytime a matchup can get 41%, for any sample like that, and it's not even mentioned by the balance team, it smells. Smells bad.
|
United Kingdom20308 Posts
On February 10 2016 06:23 Daimai wrote:
I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
There was an argument for adept 2 to 3 shot change in the early game but the PO change was a poorly timed design change without the appropriate compensatory buffs (particularly for PvZ and PvR)
I do mention Random because they're 12% of archon GM at the moment and protoss vs random is probably the most imbalanced matchup in the game right now (in favor of the Random).
|
I am myself a mathmatician and i would like to see how you calculated the p-values. If it doesnt take much time, could you please post the formulas of your binomial tests. I would like to reexamine it and check its validity. Thank you.
|
On February 09 2016 12:44 Cascade wrote:I suggest you use the term "high variance" instead of "binary", as you boys seem to be fighting about what it actually means. Hopefully everyone can agree that the disruptor has a high variance in terms of damage output, which I think is the actual issue some of you have with it, not being binary. Probability distributions of damage output to illustrate.
^^ nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
